Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I know we disagree on some issues, but we all share the same wish: to protect gamefish populations and to have diversity and fairness for years to come.

I have come to see that this is scarcely possible under the current system. Governor Owens and others seem to have put some very bad apples onto the wildlife comission. They only follow their own agenda rather than listen to the people and do what the people want.

I think we need to have wildlife comission elections and also a "wildlife constitution" which states that no law can ever be passed that will directly infringe on the rights to fish and hunt, and that no one who holds anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs can ever be elected to the comission.

This "constitution" would basically ensure that very bad apples such as peta and others could never make their way onto the board.

What do you think about this? Any alternative ideas?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
for someone that keep reminding us how smart he is you do say some stupid ----

we live in the united states
and we have the right to disagree

you cant discriminate just because they dont want to do it your way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
i think you have a long way to go as there is absolutely no evidence that fishing or hunting is a RIGHT! if you can show me wrong please do so
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,144 Posts
IceInTheVeins said:
I think we need to have wildlife comission elections and also a "wildlife constitution" which states that no law can ever be passed that will directly infringe on the rights to fish and hunt, and that no one who holds anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs can ever be elected to the comission.

This "constitution" would basically ensure that very bad apples such as peta and others could never make their way onto the board.

What do you think about this? Any alternative ideas?
I'm afraid that what you are proposing here is impossible as people can define "anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs" in a myriad of ways. For example, one person might argue that any harvesting of fish is an "anti fishing" practice, but would that same view be shared by very many of us? In my opinion, it is a trap to attempt to see things in black and white where there are often so many shades of gray.

Having said that, I do not see a simple solution to the problems other than keeping all communication about how new regulations are decided as open as possible. All "research" should be subject to scrutiny and those of us who pay for fishing licenses should always have something to say about these decisions. Where most of the fisherman disagree with the policies, there should be some recourse to remove or replace commission representatives.

... just my $.02
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Ice,
Based on what I have seen you write here, I will NOT be joining you on any board, committee, bake sale or any other endeavor!!!
left_turn56
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
left_turn56 said:
Ice,
Based on what I have seen you write here, I will NOT be joining you on any board, committee, bake sale or any other endeavor!!!
left_turn56
Well if you disagree with me thats fine. However if you think that the current trend and many practices that our wildlife managers are undertaking are good, I think you are sadly wrong on that, with all due respect.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
work2fish said:
IceInTheVeins said:
I think we need to have wildlife comission elections and also a "wildlife constitution" which states that no law can ever be passed that will directly infringe on the rights to fish and hunt, and that no one who holds anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs can ever be elected to the comission.

This "constitution" would basically ensure that very bad apples such as peta and others could never make their way onto the board.

What do you think about this? Any alternative ideas?
I'm afraid that what you are proposing here is impossible as people can define "anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs" in a myriad of ways.  For example, one person might argue that any harvesting of fish is an "anti fishing" practice, but would that same view be shared by very many of us?  In my opinion, it is a trap to attempt to see things in black and white where there are often so many shades of gray.

Having said that, I do not see a simple solution to the problems other than keeping all communication about how new regulations are decided as open as possible.  All "research" should be subject to scrutiny and those of us who pay for fishing licenses should always have something to say about these decisions.  Where most of the fisherman disagree with the policies, there should be some recourse to remove or replace commission representatives.

... just my $.02
I agree. There is a huge grey area as to what anti fishing and hunting truly is.

However, does anyone else here think we should be able to vote on issues or at least recall comission members?

I will look into the law and see if a ballot measure can be used to change a state wildlife regulation. I am not sure you can, but if you can, that is what we should do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
work2fish said:
IceInTheVeins said:
I think we need to have wildlife comission elections and also a "wildlife constitution" which states that no law can ever be passed that will directly infringe on the rights to fish and hunt, and that no one who holds anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs can ever be elected to the comission.

This "constitution" would basically ensure that very bad apples such as peta and others could never make their way onto the board.

What do you think about this? Any alternative ideas?
I'm afraid that what you are proposing here is impossible as people can define "anti hunting or anti fishing beliefs" in a myriad of ways.  For example, one person might argue that any harvesting of fish is an "anti fishing" practice, but would that same view be shared by very many of us?  In my opinion, it is a trap to attempt to see things in black and white where there are often so many shades of gray.

Having said that, I do not see a simple solution to the problems other than keeping all communication about how new regulations are decided as open as possible.  All "research" should be subject to scrutiny and those of us who pay for fishing licenses should always have something to say about these decisions.  Where most of the fisherman disagree with the policies, there should be some recourse to remove or replace commission representatives.

... just my $.02
I agree. There is a huge grey area as to what anti fishing and hunting truly is.

However, does anyone else here think we should be able to vote on issues or at least recall comission members?

I will look into the law and see if a ballot measure can be used to change a state wildlife regulation. I am not sure you can, but if you can, that is what we should do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
roadkill said:
i think you have a long way to go as there is absolutely no evidence that fishing or hunting is a RIGHT! if you can show me wrong please do so
No it isn't. But unecessary and unfair restrictions on the priveledge are unethical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,797 Posts
sounds like a bunch of double talk...lol

sorry couldnt resist
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top